Have you stopped beating your wife? Can’t stop something that isn’t happening in the first place, idiot.
Sorry, Stevie, but 'round these parts it’s the job of the prosecution prove people’s guilt, not the other way around.
Certainly that’s what I’m arguing for. But, believe it or not, there are those that think someone should have to prove that they acted in self defence, not have the prosecution prove that they didn’t.
A philosophy of justice and the philosophy of justice aren’t the same thing.
If I murder someone then I think I should be able to prove that what I did was legally justified and thus not a crime. That’s why I have a problem with who currently has the legal burden.
My philosophy of justice and the philosophy of justice aren’t the same thing.
Try working on the My philosophy of justice and the philosophy of justice are the same thing thing.
CMC fnord!
I’m not talking about a murderer proving their innocence, though, I’m talking about a non-murderer doing so - or rather, not having to do so.
Prove you didn’t murder Davis.
You don’t think the jury should believe my witnesses.
CMC fnord!
You must be guilty then…
Do you see why this doesn’t work yet?
…hoooold up. You recently disregarded entirely the idea that your approach leads to me being able to kill anyone I want simply by claiming self-defense, and witnesses be damned. And–here’s the important bit–you didn’t bother to address it. Why on earth does your bullshit ad absurdum get to take precedence when you ignore others’?
I see a lot of people here wasting a lot of pixels engaging Steophan. Save your pixels. He isn’t sane, nor rational, nor of good will, nor amenable to facts or logic, neither here nor in that thread about NYPD either. Let him rot.
Yeah, you’re right. Thanks.
Remember those “My Aunt McGillicuddy” riddles, where you would be given examples of things she liked versus did not like, and you had to figure out the underlying property? I have a variation for you.
My Aunt Steophan loves Larry Bird, but hates Magic Johnson.
My Aunt Steophan loves ivory and hates ebony.
My Aunt Steophan loves John McEnroe but hates Arthur Ashe.
My Aunt Steophan loves Ethan Hawke but hates Denzel Washington.
My Aunt Steophan loves snow but hates coal.
My Aunt Steophan loves Gandalf the White and is ambivalent about Gandalf the Grey.
Can you figure out why my Aunt Steophan likes what she likes?
**Steophan **is willing to sacrifice any number of other people’s lives for his principles. That’s what makes him a hero.
No, the principle that people should be allowed to defend themselves saves lives. Mostly, if the statistics I’ve read are true, black lives. And yet, despite your lies about me, I support that principle. Odd, that.
He’s also bravely willing to call non-violent, non-criminal, dead black teenagers “thugs” while bravely not having any dehumanizing labels for their murderous killers, and bravely willing to lie about the posts he makes, bravely defying the average person’s basic understanding of the internet and how past posts actually still exist and are viewable. All after bravely refusing to face the fact that he was wrong about the additional evidence for the case in question, bravely refusing to acknowledge its existence in the face of multiple publicly available documents.
Brave, brave, brave, brave, Steophan.
Since when is “thug” dehumanising, anyway? It seems to be a particularly human trait to get joy from inflicting suffering on others. People who inflict minor misery on others, such as Davis, fully deserve the all-too-human label “thug”.
Dunn isn’t a thug, as far as I can tell. A nutter who thinks that being allowed to defend himself against one person gives him the right to attempt to murder several others, yes. Is “nutjob attempted murderer” no an appropriate description of him? It’s the one I used.
For the last few decades, since it’s been used to justify mistreatment of young black men.
Now you’ve left the accusation of criminal behavior behind, I see.
But that’s not reasonable. It’s just not reasonable to equate playing loud music with violence – and the word “thug” has always been associated with violence. It’s not reasonable to put something that is incredibly common behavior, especially for teenagers – playing loud music – in that same category. And it’s just hyperbole to call it “misery” – even minor misery… at worst it’s an annoyance. At worst, Davis did something annoying and obnoxious, and if the worst thing you can say about a teenager (especially a dead teenager!) is that he once did something annoying and obnoxious, then it’s not reasonable to call him a “thug”. In fact, if that’s the worst thing a teenager has done, then he’s probably a pretty great kid!
That’s what the criticism about your use of “thug” is about – that you, for some reason, called a kid who, at worst, did something a bit annoying and obnoxious and you equate it with personal physical violence and the label “thug”. That’s not a reasonable use of the word.
That’s a fine descriptor (and I’d call him a murderer, of course, since that’s what the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt). I don’t see why he isn’t a thug, though – he shot at fleeing kids (and, if you believe the jury, he murdered a kid). Shooting at kids is an incredibly violent thing to do – if Davis shot at Dunn while he was driving away, I don’t think you’d flinch from calling him a thug.
Oh look, you’re bringing race into it again.
Race has nothing to do with this case, and has nothing to do with whether anyone is a thug. And yet, despite the fact that others keep bringing it up, I’m the one being accused of being racist. Absurd.
I’m not accusing you of being racist. I think you’re unaware of the recent history of the use of the word “thug”.
What I’m most interested in, and most critical of, is your insistence on using a term associated with personal violence – thug – to describe a non-violent, and non-criminal dead teenager. It’s not reasonable to use such a word for someone who, at worst, did something a bit obnoxious… if Davis is a “thug” for playing loud music, then most teenagers are thugs.
If most teenagers, when asked as part of a group to turn down obnoxiously loud music, and after one of the group complies, deliberately turns it up again, then yes, most would be.
However, the evidence from this particular case, admittedly with a small sample, doesn’t back that up.
There’s no doubt many teenagers either are, or want to be perceived as, thugs. There’s whole, massively successful genres of entertainment aimed at that. And since you’re so obsessed with race, I’ll observe that the majority of the ones I’ve encountered have been white.
That’s not reasonable – that’s just being a bit obnoxious, and being a bit obnoxious shouldn’t qualify one as a “thug”. That term is associated with violence, not being a bit obnoxious.
Whether this is true or not, I don’t think it’s relevant. Davis didn’t do anything violent at all. At worst, he was obnoxious, and Dunn shot him for it.